The new Drug War is the War on Piracy

[Penelope420]

Originally Posted by numba1stunna885

I don't blame anyone. It's there, it's free. I didn't create the situation, I just take advantage of it. And the last thing I'm worried about is the quality of art and whether it gets devalued. Maybe artists should have to live regular lives like everyone else and then we would see who really is in it for love of the art and whose just out to make a quick buck. And Society would not suffer from a lack of quality music. That notion is outrageous and you know it.

You are absolutely blaming the artists. It's not YOUR fault your a thief, it's the artist's fault for putting their work out there in the first place.

That's ridiculous.

I live a regular life just like everyone else, and I deserve to get paid for my work. Period. If you don't want to pay for it, and you take it anyway, then you deserve whatever penalty the government can throw at you.

This whole "doing it for the love of the art" is bullshit. It costs money to make and distribute art. It doesn't just magically sprout from the earth.

[Penelope420]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

But now we're beyond the Artist. The artist created the work, not the family.

But it's the artist that controls the rights to their work. An artist can easily say that once they die, their work becomes public domain, but if they choose to pass the rights on to their estate or their family, that is entirely within their right. Why should anyone else decide what can and can not be done with someone else's life work? My collection of photography is MY legacy to hand down to my child, just like any other collection or inheritance.

And then what about tabs and covers? If a band does a cover of "All Along the Watchtower" aren't they stealing from Bob Dylan? And aren't tab sites taking away profit from music books?

That's getting too much into areas of copyright law that I'm unfamiliar with... so I'm sorry, I have no idea.

[IGOTJOINTS4YA]

Originally Posted by numba1stunna885

Dur dur dur dur what grade did you complete you illiterate fuck. "It would make since" hahahahahha your moms should be sued for letting you out of your cage. Yeah I'ma swagger jacker, keeping wasting half of your McDonald's paychecks buying music and feeling like you're above me somehow because of it. You ?

SWAGGER JACKER

Weezy steals ryhmes more and beats more than any artist in Hip Hop, to call him hip hop is totally true, he steals such a vast amount material from the whole community that it is perfectly cool to say that he is hiphop, he's takes a track from every popular artist just about.

Stealing is not cool bro.

[numba1stunna885]

Originally Posted by Penelope420

You are absolutely blaming the artists. It's not YOUR fault your a thief, it's the artist's fault for putting their work out there in the first place.

That's ridiculous.

I live a regular life just like everyone else, and I deserve to get paid for my work. Period. If you don't want to pay for it, and you take it anyway, then you deserve whatever penalty the government can throw at you.

This whole "doing it for the love of the art" is bullshit. It costs money to make and distribute art. It doesn't just magically sprout from the earth.

That's a laughable argument. I'm not blaming anyone, other than the technology that has allowed us to get it for free. That's why I do it. I didn't scheme my way to free music, I used what was available and got something for free as opposed to paying for it. It's so simple that all that "you blame them and blah blah blah" falls of deaf ears with me. I don't give a fuck whose fault it is, I'm getting something for free because I can and because paying for something when I don't need to is fucking retarded. Call it what you want I could care less, I'd rather have my money, and believe me I've never lost sleep over it either.

[numba1stunna885]

Originally Posted by IGOTJOINTS4YA

SWAGGER JACKER

Weezy steals ryhmes more and beats more than any artist in Hip Hop, to call him hip hop is totally true, he steals such a vast amount material from the whole community that it is perfectly cool to say that he is hiphop, he's takes a track from every popular artist just about.

Stealing is not cool bro.

I don't care about what you think about Lil Wayne how bout that?

[Buzzard]

Originally Posted by Penelope420

But it's the artist that controls the rights to their work. An artist can easily say that once they die, their work becomes public domain, but if they choose to pass the rights on to their estate or their family, that is entirely within their right. Why should anyone else decide what can and can not be done with someone else's life work? My collection of photography is MY legacy to hand down to my child, just like any other collection or inheritance.



That's getting too much into areas of copyright law that I'm unfamiliar with... so I'm sorry, I have no idea.

All I'm saying is that I try to support the artist so they can continue to make music. Families don't play into it for me. I would buy a Ziggy Marley album to keep him making music but I'm not going to buy a Bob album to support Ziggy.

Get what I mean?



Believe it or not copyright law try's to extend that far.

[Penelope420]

Originally Posted by numba1stunna885

That's a laughable argument. I'm not blaming anyone, other than the technology that has allowed us to get it for free. That's why I do it. I didn't scheme my way to free music, I used what was available and got something for free as opposed to paying for it. It's so simple that all that "you blame them and blah blah blah" falls of deaf ears with me. I don't give a fuck whose fault it is, I'm getting something for free because I can and because paying for something when I don't need to is fucking retarded. Call it what you want I could care less, I'd rather have my money, and believe me I've never lost sleep over it either.

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't make it OK or right. You sound like a 6 year old. Just because you didn't personally invent pirating, doesn't mean that you aren't benefitting from someone else's hard work.

Stop trying to justify your reasons for stealing from others. If you're going to do it, then do it, but don't try to justify it.

[IGOTJOINTS4YA]

Originally Posted by numba1stunna885

I don't care about what you think about Lil Wayne how bout that?

It is not what I think, it is fact, the man has been ripping off people since way before the carter albums, he is a joke.

He even claims to be a blood...

[numba1stunna885]

Originally Posted by Penelope420

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't make it OK or right. You sound like a 6 year old. Just because you didn't personally invent pirating, doesn't mean that you aren't benefitting from someone else's hard work.

Stop trying to justify your reasons for stealing from others. If you're going to do it, then do it, but don't try to justify it.

I don't need to justify it. It's there for free so I'm going to take advantage of it. I'm not saying it's right but I don't find it to be morally reprehensible like you do. But it's clear you're insanely biased because you're a musician I suppose. You got your panties in a bunch thinking that I really care about what's right or wrong when it comes to getting free music. I care about dollars and cents, fuck everything else.

[Penelope420]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

All I'm saying is that I try to support the artist so they can continue to make music. Families don't play into it for me. I would buy a Ziggy Marley album to keep him making music but I'm not going to buy a Bob album to support Ziggy.

Get what I mean?

No, I don't get what you mean. Sorry.

It's not your work to decide who is supported by it. Bob made his work to support his family, and fortunately for them it will continue to do so long after his death.

It's like, if someone works hard and makes lots of money by playing the stock market, that money doesn't become public domain just because that person has died. That money gets passed on to that person's family. Bob's work is his to pass on to his family, not yours to have for free.

[numba1stunna885]

Originally Posted by IGOTJOINTS4YA

It is not what I think, it is fact, the man has been ripping off people since way before the carter albums, he is a joke.

Yup you got it, a joke that sold a milli first week, I guess people like buying joke CD's huh? LOL

[Dr.Dankmen]

Included in the bill is the issue of ‘civil forfeiture’, where articles can be seized and held if it is thought they are to be used in committing a crime, or infringement.

Your right this is scary shit, its almost as if they are getting more and more powers in these bills they are doing. The Bailout gave the IRS more power, the Patriot act gave them the power to spy on us legally, and a few months back they got more power by a new wiretapping bill. They are now officially alowed to do so much un constitutional things, and no one not even me will do a thing about it. this now makes them able to take things that they consider to be used for a crime, which is against our amendment about our right of search and seizure, We let them torture and underfund our troops and everything else. fucking hope shit changes, cuz i kno no one wants to do anything related to a revolution

[IGOTJOINTS4YA]

Originally Posted by numba1stunna885

Yup you got it, a joke that sold a milli first week, I guess people like buying joke CD's huh? LOL

Britney Spears sold more than a million first week, sounds like mrs pop star got the swagger jacker beat.

[Doe_Doe_Bird]

It doesnt matter what anyone says PIRATING IS STEALING.

Thats a rule that goes with anything not just music, movies, and games. Can you just walk in a store take something u want and walk out without having paid for it. NO becasuse its stealing.

If you didnt create the product you have no right to take from that person that did. Would you want somebody taking what you created and not paying for it.

Nothing is free in this world and it never will be in this day in age. Me being a musician I get angered when I hear people say they downloaded music cuz it was free. Creating a album is not cheap.

Creating a album breaks down like this:

The major or independent record company gives the artist a budget to create their album.

They then pay for the artist studio fees, producers fees, engineers fees, featured artist fees, and misc. fees thereof.

Then they proceed to pay for promotion, advertising, and media(tv,radio,internet). they also pay the manager a small percentage of whatever the artist makes.

Dont forget about the shows and the percentage of money they give up per albun sale, ticket sale, and merchandise sale. the bottom line is that if the record company gives them a budget to create their album, they have to make back double of what they were given. Example the label gives them 1mil. The artist would have to make at least 2mill just ot pay back that 1mill and still pocket the other 1mill for themselves.

So that little 13.99 you just spent is nothing compared to what they have to spend.

[Dark_Angers]

As I see copyright it should be for giving credit to the creator. What I mean is, so someone can't come along and say they took the picture when you did. This is what copyright should be and only be. In Spain this is how copyright is looked at.

What do you anti piracy people have to say about part of this article on the British RIAA equivalent

But going after children isn’t exclusively an MPLC tactic, the PRS are doing it too. Part of the claim against the tea-rooms mentioned above was that the kids there needed to be licensed to sing carols in front of the public and now, to add insult to injury, the PRS ‘non-profit’ copyright cop is going after a kid’s non-profit community center in Glasgow, Scotland. The Yoker Resource Centre is faced with a £3,000 bill, it if wants to carry on using its TV, radio or CD player, that is.

http://torrentfreak.com/uk-copyright...enters-081015/

These lobby groups are targeting charities that have little money. On top of that many of these cases come from playing a radio to people who don't own the radio. Radios pay royalties why should people pay twice to listen to listen to a song. The artist already got paid.

Same is true for a CD player or TV the artist got paid already for their work why should people pay twice. If I buy a CD I should be able to do what I want with it I paid money for it. Example, if I buy a loaf of bread and give it out for free, and the baker tries to come around and collect money from everyone eating the bread nobody would listen to the baker. It is an absurd thing of the baker to do,

__________________________________________________ _______________________________
“I’ll say it for the hundredth time: If I buy a book and read it, and then give you the book to read, I have broken no laws. Why is that not true for all media?” - Michael Moore

The current era of intellectual property is waning. It has been based on two faulty assumptions made nearly three decades ago: that since some intellectual property (IP) is good, more must be better; and that IP is about controlling knowledge rather than sharing it. These assumptions are as inaccurate in biotechnology , the field of science covered by this report , as they are in other fields from music to software.

http://torrentfreak.com/study-says-i...ld-die-080911/

This act will go beyond music and this article covers the IP beyond media.

Slipknot vocalist and frontman Corey Taylor has launched an attack on recording labels, saying that instead of spending their time chasing downloaders, they should use their resources to find bands that produce better music.

http://torrentfreak.com/slipknot-fro...piracy-080910/

Even big name artist support downloading of music.

The statistics behind the pay-what-you-like release of Radiohead's 'In Rainbows' album, released on October 10 last year online, have been revealed today (October 15).

According to reports most fans chose to pay nothing to download the album. However, it still generated more money before it was physically released (on December 31) than the total money generated by sales of the band's previous album, 2003's 'Hail To The Thief'.

According to Music Ally, Jane Dyball, head of business affairs at Warner Chappell (the publishing company that oversaw the release of 'In Rainbows'), refused to reveal the average price people were downloading the album for.

However, Dyball, set to speak about the release at the Iceland Airwaves conference later, explained that Warner Chappell and Radiohead's management were monitoring the average price daily, and was prepared to cancel the download facility if the average price became too low.

The download facility was taken down after three months, and the album went to Number One in the UK and USA after being physically released.

Statistics revealed that most fans downloaded the album through file-sharing service BitTorrent, but that this had been anticipated before the release.

The band sold 100,000 copies of the 'In Rainbows' box set, which contained extra songs not available on the standard download or CD release.

Warner Chappell concluded that the new release style was a financial success, but did not reveal whether Radiohead plan to release an album in a similar way in the future.]

http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/40444

They seem to make money off free downloads?

Small time artist should embrace free downloading to get a larger fan base. Who can complain more fans is bad. More fans = more tours = merch sales = money.


Also the amount of time a recording staying in copyright is bullshit. The artist should plan like anyone else for retirement. Why should they get money once they stop working? In the new age it should be if they want more money when they are old they should have toured more when they were young.